arrrg

Does that matter? Seems weird to me to make that argument. I’m honestly quite confused by it.

A bowling bot that threw strikes 9 out of 10 throws and a gutter ball one time out of ten would still be a great bowler even though no human with the ability to make strikes that often would pretty much ever throw a gutter ball.

This is a weird kind of alien intelligence that does not have to behave like humans.

Does that matter? I’m really very confused by the argument you are making.

That you may have to babysit this particular aspect of playing the game seems quite irrelevant to me.

But the human (in the comment chain) here made exactly the same mistake!

In that sense this test doesn’t seem to be a good fit for testing the reasoning capabilities. Since it‘s also easy to get wrong for humans (and humans also don’t always reason about everything from first principles, especially if they have similar answers already cached in their memory).

It seems you would need novel puzzles that aren’t really common (even if in kind) and don’t really sound similar to existing puzzles to get a handle on its reasoning capabilities.

Yeah, those are exactly the kinds of things we should be doing.

This world does not have the resources for everyone to live like we now do. We have to downsize. And most of what you mention is perfectly reasonable and not even much of a problem.

This is such a straw man.

In general most people making a certain point will not disagree that there are exceptions to it. Just assuming that they are not aware of those exceptions is dishonest or at the very least not very perceptive.

Also, quote directly from the video (14:25): “And if you do live in a rural area you might need to drive a light truck and obviously that’s fine and I don’t care. But we are talking about suburbia here …”

He explicitly excluded you.

What‘s your proposal to get transportation emissions to zero?

Mine is an appropriate CO2 price (pricing in the currently not priced in externalities) and then distributing most of the money from that equally back to everyone (meaning those who earn less and also pollute less will on average get more money back than the increase in CO2 costs for them while still preserving a strong incentive to reduce emissions).

It seems pretty clear to me that in that world BEVs are the only viable way forward for personal transportation.

Carmakers in general (all the ones that matter, anyway) don’t even plan to produce any combustion cars by 2035.

I’m not sure where you are getting it from that this isn’t happening. I mean, it has to happen. Also, E-Fuels aren’t an alternative since they are even more expensive.

Your prompt doesn’t take into account what this feature actually does.

Asking whether you did fall is not really the right question in that situation.

For example: I did have a serious fall (that hurt a lot) with my bike that triggered this feature – but I was conscious afterwards and seemed somewhat ok. As such I didn’t want my watch to make an SOS call (dialing emergency services and contacting my emergency contacts). I wanted to give myself time to assess the situation first.

However, I did fall and the Watch correctly detected that fall. So to this yes/no question I would have to technically answer yes.

In that context the “I’m OK” button is actually pretty great. It works both if you didn’t actually fall (a false positive) and also if you did fall but it’s not serious enough to call an ambulance. (If you say I’m OK it actually asks follow up questions to determine whether it was a false positive or whether you did actually fall.)

When the watch detects a fall there is a countdown and noise and vibration and after that the watch will make an SOS call automatically. As such it‘s not so important to make it super clear and easy to make that SOS call manually. In that context it seems like a fine tradeoff to me to prevent accidentally making that SOS call.

I think it‘s exactly right for the watch to put front and center why it’s doing what it‘s doing in those situations, while also making it very clear that there can be false positives.

I think legally meaningless CYA statements are actually dangerous.

They can suck the air out of actual understanding of the legal situation at hand and, in the worst case, lead to an warped understanding of copyright that interacts with the world with supposed magical incantations that are legally totally meaningless or even the opposite of the truth. (I’m thinking of those YouTube videos e.g. showing some snippet of a film uploaded by someone who doesn’t have the copyright with the totally bonkers “copyright Universal 2020, no infringement intended” note. I know, that‘s mostly about someone who is not a business and who usually doesn’t have anything to do with copyright being confused about the difference between attribution and copyright and thinking giving attribution gives you copyright – which is bonkers. Fair use does require attribution, but simply copying something verbatim is certainly not fair use.)

That seems like a weird assertion. I really wouldn’t downplay US worldwide cultural domination, whether you like that or not.

Especially since you are setting a very low bar here: merely having heard of Hollywood.

Don’t confuse what you might wish for with reality.

Sellers can still make it very clear how much of the sum were taxes.

Here in Germany every bill, every receipt will contain that information. (I mean, obviously, it’s legally required.)

Different sellers do this differently in terms of clarity, though I think this has little to do with any kind of price signal to the buyer or sticking it to the government or something like that.

My feeling is that the more likely it is that the customer is a company (which do not have to pay VAT) the more clearly do sellers communicate the VAT part of the price.

In fact, if you are not selling to consumers you can ditch that VAT altogether when you communicate your prices. Alternatively (when talking about online retailers) they may provide a toggle to switch between being a business customers or a private customer, e.g. here the toggle top left next to the Conrad logo: https://www.conrad.de

That doesn’t really make sense. I think the linked argument is persuasive but it has little bearing on the situation at hand. (By the same token you could argue making that argument at all – thus providing this approach as a solution to problems to the long term memory of large language models – means you have least. This is getting into Roko’s Basilisk territory.)

What you arguments amounts to is making it impossible to write critically about LLMs. Because writing “yeah, Bing did some weird shit but no, I can’t show you the transcript” just doesn’t fly in the real world. That won’t reach those who ultimately actually have power over it (companies and society at large).

I don’t see the kind of utopian equilibrium you are describing manifest itself anywhere.

The central question is how do you prevent a race to the bottom? And I just don’t see that manifesting itself if abolish labor rights (which to me seems to be what you are advocating for).

People already don’t have a lot of choice when it comes to their employer. How will you make sure that there are enough jobs for people "want(ing) to go slow"? (Toilet breaks, overtime that is actually paid, parental leave, reasonable limits on work time, ergonomic and safe work places, unlimited and paid sick leave, a reasonable amount of vacation time, i.e. more than a month, etc. This is all standard where I’m from and unions help enforce this.)

What part of moving fast requires treating employees like shit? (Where my definition of treating like shit is not having any of the things listed above in brackets?)

In general people need to work to live dignified lives. To me the natural consequence of this is that you cannot employ people and treat them any way you like. They are not like machines, their dignity has to be preserved.

There are several ways to achieve this (plain old regulation being one of those tools), but allowing people to freely associate without that association being the reason to fire them seems like another pretty obvious and great tool.

I don’t really understand why the vision of companies as empires with absolute monarchs seems so appealing to people. That seems like a disgusting vision to me that we should strive to avoid. Since people aren’t machines.

So, this works with temperatures down to freezing and below (don’t know what the cut off is, maybe there is none given this planet’s temperature range) and if you heat and dress appropriately (i.e. not up to super high temperatures – around 20°C or so – and if you have a sweater or jacket on or can put one on).

Obviously you also need the appropriate building for it. (So no fancy passive house. No fancy air conditioning – which is quite uncommon where I’m from anyway.)

Generally, if you only open the windows for five minutes or so the air will cool down substantially (the right moment to pull on that sweater) but everything else (walls, furniture) will not really cool down that much, meaning the room will be quick to be back at an appropriate temperature.

We learned and did this in school, often do it in offices and meeting rooms and also at home. Though, admittedly the temporary unpleasantness does frequently lead to people postponing opening the windows forever and ever. (Once every 90 minutes in a classroom setting might not be enough.)

In those settings a CO2 traffic light as an obvious visual indicator would be super helpful.

That is a hypothesis. I just don’t understand why it should have policy impact since there is no evidence for it. It’s currently just a conspiracy theory.

What’s objectionable about that? Can you explain that to me. I’m afraid I really don’t understand.

Why does that have to happen at the same time?

It should, obviously, but even today (with not so great energy mixes) electric cars do better than gas cars from an emissions point of view (even if looking at the whole life cycle).

Electric cars are energy mix agnostic and you try to frame that as a disadvantage but it actually is not, quite the opposite. They are one puzzle piece that enables change and without which change is not possible.

I don’t get arguments like yours.

Obviously we always have to do much, much more. We have to massively push individual cars out of densely populated areas and turn them into an option that is not fun at all to use there. We have to upgrade public transport. We have to better our energy mix. Buildings have to become more efficient on a massive scale. Energy intensive industrial processes have to transition to ways of doing things that can at least be plausibly made CO2 (equivalent) neutral like hydrogen. And and and. Doesn’t mean that all of this has to or even can happen at the same time.

What does caving to the woke mob even mean?

This is just such a weird perspective.

Do you have a right to be published?

Free association is also an important liberal right.

That seems like hyperbole. They are certainly not a place where you can (easily) have fun playing around in the water, nor a place for beginners to learn to swim. However, they are still exactly right for anyone who can swim and wants to do some plain swimming.

The local 50 meter pool here is always filled with people young and old (and on no way elite) that just swim. You don’t need to be very fit to be able to swim 50 meters without a break.

It‘s a different kind of swimming compared to just hanging around and having fun, sure, but it always seems to be quite in demand when I see pools like that.

(The swimming complex close to me has two Olympic size swimming pools and one of those is open to the public, the other is used by actual elite athletes but also kids who are learning to swim. There is also a small 12.5 meter pool with adjustable depth to learn swimming and for aqua fitness courses.)

It makes sense in markets where iMessage has a relevant market share.

In other markets other messaging apps like WhatsApp dominate (and for those it’s irrelevant what platform you are on).

Also, "Green Bubble" is not at all about (any and all) friction between platforms. That makes no sense. It’s fundamentally about a specific kind of friction relating to network effects and and an obvious display of difference.

I’m not aware of that PR campaign – which is why I didn’t understand your comment at all – so (not living in the US) if this is something that didn’t reach me Google may have well placed their PR efforts even if what they claim is not globally true.

I do not understand your comment. Could you write legible arguments and tone down the cynicism and sarcasm?

I don’t think that was ever a thing outside the US. Seems consequently like a weird and distorted perspective to me.

Humans can generate realistic fake signatures. That‘s the point.

What do you mean by saying that the consequences of not always asking whether something was recorded in analog or digital are incomparable?

Asking that question seems relatively irrelevant to me, especially now that pretty much everything is at some point converted to digital anyway, if only for ease of distribution.

In that sense filming on film, for example, is only an aesthetic choice and a choice about the tools you want to use on set, anyway. Which is not to say that it doesn’t matter or doesn’t make a difference. But in cinemas they will still project the digitized version of that film. And people will still distribute digitized scans of their “analogue” photos online.

I mean, even “digital” cameras record decidedly analogue voltages from photosites, the difference is mostly about at which point in the chain you put the analogue digital converter.

But what difference does it make?

Do you think it‘s pointless to talk about the ethics of decisions of other people, especially if those decisions affect several thousand people? Do you think anything that is legal is also ethical?

Also, in general I don’t live in that world. It‘s much harder for sound companies to just lay off people in Germany (though not impossible).

Is it necessary to fire them? That's the relevant question we should ask ourselves.

A hiring freeze and marking obsolete positions as obsolete (meaning if someone switches teams or quits that specific position will not be replaced) should be a workable model for all profitable companies with some cash reserves. Sure, it takes a bit longer and probably costs a bit more (though probably not tons and lay offs also have other traumatic effects concerning knowledge loss, morale and motivation that can negatively affect the business) but it's a workable model.

Embed that into overall more cautious hiring in good times (yeah, we can't time travel, so that's not an option - but to me that's the thing that should be learned from this) and you should never have to do any layoffs if your business is basically sound. I would be shocked, for example, if Apple were to do any lay offs. They seem to follow that approach (well, probably not in the retail context which I also think is unfortunate).

To me it seems like those lay offs are primarily a tool to communicate and that just sucks. It sucks that something that should clearly be seen as a management failure (if you need to do lay offs it seems to me obvious that management is to blame, not those laid off) can in this weird upside down world be used as a communication tool towards the wider world that they are doing something useful. Even if it wouldn't be needed.

Also, I just don't think people should be treated like that, especially if it's not needed. It seems so pointlessly cruel and inhuman. This is not the world I want to live in.

And I know that's hard to pull off in capitalism. Maybe that's the issue. Though it's not as if you cannot modify capitalism to at least not allow for stuff like this.

That’s not my experience at all. I follow all kinds of people I followed on Twitter before. And they use all kinds of instances (some even migrated from instance to instance – I wouldn’t have noticed if they hadn’t mentioned it).

Using Ivory my experience is eerily similar to Twitter. Why do you think it wouldn’t be? If a critical mass of interesting people is there it just works.

I don’t really use the local timeline at all, that‘s just not relevant to me.

Obviously this will be wildly different for everyone depending on how many people made the move. For me personally and how I used Twitter it just works (and Twitter proper was getting more and more deserted and uninteresting anyway).